It now emerges that the last four years of Julian Assange’s effective imprisonment in the Ecuadorean embassy in London have been entirely unnecessary. In fact, they depended on a legal charade.

Behind the scenes, Sweden wanted to drop the extradition case against Assange back in 2013. Why was this not made public? Because Britain persuaded Sweden to pretend that they still wished to pursue the case.

In other words, for more than four years Assange has been holed up in a tiny room, policed at great cost to British taxpayers, not because of any allegations in Sweden but because the British authorities wanted him to remain there. On what possible grounds could that be, one has to wonder? Might it have something to do with his work as the head of Wikileaks, publishing information from whistleblowers that has severely embarrassed the United States and the UK.

In fact, Assange should have walked free years ago if this was really about an investigation – a sham one at that – into an alleged sexual assault in Sweden. Instead, as Assange has long warned, there is a very different agenda at work: efforts to extradite him onwards to the US, where he could be locked away for good. That was why UN experts argued two years ago that he was being “arbitrarily detained” – for political crimes – not unlike the situation of dissidents in other parts of the world that win the support of western liberals and leftists.

According to a new, limited release of emails between officials, the Swedish director of public prosecutions, Marianne Ny, wrote to Britain’s Crown Prosecution Service on 18 October 2013, warning that Swedish law would not allow the case for extradition to be continued. This was, remember, after Sweden had repeatedly failed to take up an offer from Assange to interview him in London, as had happened in 44 other extradition cases between Sweden and Britain.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes appears on Sunday Morning Futures with Maria Bartiromo for an extensive interview discussing the ongoing investigation into the DOJ, FBI and State Department; and their collaboration with the Hillary Clinton campaign to weaponize political opposition research in the 2016 election.

Chairman Nunes describes how the Democrats on the HPSCI put classified information into their memo intentionally in an effort to create political benefit; and now refuse to redact and release their own work product.

Chairman Devin Nunes keeps a big picture focus while also describing how corrupt officials within the DOJ and FBI continued to use the “Title-1” surveillance warrant in 2017 to monitor and track all of the communication between Carter Page and congress. In essence, the ‘small group’ within the DOJ and FBI were likely spying on the congressional investigation into their own unlawful activity.

Did the Obama administration spy on Republican Senators and Supreme Court Justices? Judge Napolitano just weighed in on what Justice Scalia told him. Senator Rand Paul also accused the Obama administration of spying on him and others…

“The use of intelligence data for political purposes is a felony … Unmasking is illegal if done for any reason other than national security.”

Judge Andrew Napolitano said on Fox Business Monday that the late Justice Antonin Scalia told him “that he often thought that the court was being surveilled” roughly four or five years ago.

Napolitano appeared on the program to discuss the claim made by Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., accusing the Obama administration of spying on him and another senator.

When asked about Paul’s claim, Napolitano said, “Well, they’re most likely true. Think of this as a three-step process: Surveillance, which is acquisition in a digital version of every keystroke on every computer, and every communication on every cell phone phone and landline phone; storage, which is the maintenance of the digital versions of these communications; and then unmasking, which is accessing this data and finding out the names of the people who are actually surveilled.”

U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, released a majority staff report Wednesday titled “The Clinton Email Scandal And The FBI’s Investigation Of It,” along with text messages between two agents that shed light on the investigation. The report details the congressional investigation of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private email server and the oversight of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s involvement with their investigation of Secretary Clinton’s private server.

The report outlines how information available to the committee at this time raises serious questions about how the FBI applied the rule of law in its investigation. The majority staff report found that:

The FBI did not use a grand jury to compel testimony and obtain the vast majority of evidence, choosing instead to offer immunity deals and allow fact witnesses to join key interviews.

There were substantial edits to former FBI Director James Comey’s public statement that served to downplay the severity of Secretary Clinton’s actions, and that the first draft of the memo was distributed for editing two months before key witnesses were interviewed.

Director Comey stated that he had not consulted with the Justice Department or White House, when text messages among FBI agents involved in the investigation suggest otherwise. Two key investigators discuss an “insurance policy” against the “risk” of a Trump presidency, and “OUR task.”

and “my gut sense and concern there’s no big .” The messages strongly underscore the need to obtain still-missing text messages and other information regarding the FBI’s actions and investigations into the Clinton email scandal and Russian involvement in the November 2016 election.there there

Senior FBI officials—likely including Deputy Director Andrew McCabe— knew about newly discovered emails on a laptop belonging to former U.S. Rep. Anthony Weiner for almost a month before Director Comey notified Congress.

Most people don't know the Federal Reserve is not a government entity. It's no more Federal than Federal Express. It's owned and controlled by the largest private banks. They are using their control of the Fed to destroy the dollar, our economy and wipe out the middle class so they can replace it with a system and currency they have even MORE control of. If we don't shut down the bankers, the Federal Reserve, this nation is history! The Congress can REPEAL THE FEDERAL RESERVE ACT and return control over our currency to "We The People." We have to take back control of Congress and DEMAND THIS HAPPEN in the upcoming election!